Goffinet v. Soper
| Decision Date | 11 April 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,293 |
| Citation | 77 Kan. 555,95 P. 571 |
| Parties | F. GOFFINET v. LAURA SOPER et al |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1908.
Error from Marion district court; OSCAR L. MOORE, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. SURVEYS AND BOUNDARIES -- Appeal -- Bond Sufficient to Give Jurisdiction. A bond given to effect an appeal from a survey, by a party affected thereby, and running to the party or parties who requested the same, is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction of the case, although other persons may also be affected by the survey.
2. SURVEYS AND BOUNDARIES -- Statutory Construction. The law favors appeals, and the statute (Gen. Stat. 1901 § 1821), being silent as to whom the bond should run, should be liberally construed in favor of a hearing upon the appeal.
Dennis Madden, and King & Wheeler, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Carpenter, for defendants in error.
Defendant in error Laura Soper, for herself and her minor wards, notified the county surveyor of Marion county to survey certain lands therein. The surveyor notified the other landowners who might be affected by the survey, and at the time stated in the notice duly made the survey and made his report. The plaintiff in error in due time filed his notice in writing with the county surveyor of his intention to appeal therefrom, and filed his appeal bond, with approved surety, and the county surveyor certified the appeal to the clerk of the district court and also filed the requisite papers and reports.
The appeal was docketed in the district court under the title "F. Goffinet v. Laura Soper et al." Thereupon the defendants in error filed their motion to dismiss the appeal, on the ground that the appeal bond was insufficient to effect an appeal and to give the court jurisdiction of the action for the reason that the surveyor's report showed that persons not named in the bond were affected by the survey and that the appeal bond should run to all such as well as to Laura Soper and her wards. On the hearing of the motion the court allowed the same and dismissed the appeal. To reverse this order the case was brought here.
The only question in the case is whether the bond is void. If it was only defective or informal it was subject to correction the plaintiff in error having made timely application to the court for leave to file an amended bond. The call for the survey was for the purpose only of establishing the northeast corner of a certain section of land and the quarter-section corner on the east side of the section. The petitioners for the survey (defendants in error) owned the north half of the section, and Goffinet ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kelchner v. The City of Kansas City
... ... v ... Allison, 34 Kan. 155, 8 P. 239; Shreves v ... Gibson, 76 Kan. 709, 92 P. 584; Ottawa v ... Johnson, 73 Kan. 165, 84 P. 749; Goffinet v ... Soper, 77 Kan. 555, 95 P. 571.) ... Witnesses ... were permitted to testify to the amount of rents received by ... the owner from ... ...
-
Sheridan v. Phillips Pipe Line Co.
...1901, § 1821), being silent as to whom the bond should run, should be liberally construed in favor of a hearing upon the appeal." Goffinet v. Soper, 77 Kan. 555, pars. 1, 2, 95 P. 571. In the case of Mercantile Co. v. Wimer, 97 Kan. 31, 154 P. 216, the appeal bond filed in justice court "wa......